On Thu, 08 Jan 2004 13:12:05 +0000 (GMT), Dave Plowman
wrote:

In article ,
IMM wrote:
Newer house are more in demand in some areas, hence the higher price for
them.

It would depend on the older housing stock. If it's all back to back
terraces built next to th'pit,

Take a South Yorkshire pit village and demolish t' pit and pretty soon
it's just as chocolate -boxy as a village in the Cotswolds.

Back to back houses are OK if well built specially of stone. But by
and large they are too small to bring a family up in. OK for people
who's kids have flown the nest.


I can understand the preference for a new house.


My house was built in 1972. It's been well maintained but what worries
me is that the "London Brick Co" "Heather" bricks seem to be
deteriorating, surfaces spalling off in patches. Corners and edges
rounding off. WTH do you do about that?

DG

derek wrote in message ...
My house was built in 1972. It's been well maintained but what worries
me is that the "London Brick Co" "Heather" bricks seem to be
deteriorating, surfaces spalling off in patches. Corners and edges
rounding off. WTH do you do about that?


Either live with it, bearing in mind that the bricks are 4.5" thick and
losing an inch is not that significant or buy a few spares, cut them in
halves lengthways and after creating a suitable hole around the existing
brick, cement in half a brick. Much easier and stronger than trying to
replace a complete brick.
Alternatively, render the outside wall. London brick company commons are
very soft and frequently show surface spall. That's why better houses use
"stock" bricks, which are a different clay and fired at a higher temperature
AIUI.

Regards
Capitol

IMM wrote in message ...
What? The Victorians only had foundations a foot thick or so. Yes, they
made em to last. Sure they did! Most have been pulled down, with only the
those that by luck, or being slightly better built, surviving.

The term Jerry Built, was from a Victorina builder named Jerry Bros.


For once IMM is correct. In the Islington area of London, speculators only
erected the front walls of the terrace. When a buyer appeared, the rest of
the house was built. The building standards with locally made soft
ricks( City Road), lime mortar, casual labour and no inspection, were very,
very much worse than today. Frequently the house fell down either during or
shortly after construction. Failing to tie the dividing walls into the front
was a common failing ( and still creates havoc today, a friend bought one
for £1M and then found out that to stop it falling down was going to cost
him another £500K!) and adjacent houses were commonly completed by different
builders.

Victorian houses are very popular today, only because the better examples
have more space, convertible lofts and are in fashionable areas. Also lime
mortar can be very forgiving of a lot of subsidence.

Regards
Capitol

"Capitol" wrote in message
...

IMM wrote in message ...
What? The Victorians only had foundations a foot thick or so. Yes, they
made em to last. Sure they did! Most have been pulled down, with only
the
those that by luck, or being slightly better built, surviving.

The term Jerry Built, was from a Victorina builder named Jerry Bros.


For once IMM is correct. In the Islington area of London, speculators only
erected the front walls of the terrace. When a buyer appeared, the rest of
the house was built.

Jerry built now means shoddy. Jerry Bros did just that, built a flash
facade, sold it, and the rear was less so.


---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.558 / Virus Database: 350 - Release Date: 02/01/2004

"Capitol" wrote in message
...

derek wrote in message ...
My house was built in 1972. It's been well maintained but what worries
me is that the "London Brick Co" "Heather" bricks seem to be
deteriorating, surfaces spalling off in patches. Corners and edges
rounding off. WTH do you do about that?


Either live with it, bearing in mind that the bricks are 4.5" thick and
losing an inch is not that significant or buy a few spares, cut them in
halves lengthways and after creating a suitable hole around the existing
brick, cement in half a brick. Much easier and stronger than trying to
replace a complete brick.
Alternatively, render the outside wall.

Or install exterior insulation and clad it in timber.



---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.558 / Virus Database: 350 - Release Date: 02/01/2004

Like I said, if the previous owner has completed all the major maintenance
requirements, then there is little for the new owner to do.

Obviously this excludes minor routine work like clean gutters etc, and
maintenance that is preformed on any house new or old that can be left out
of the equation.

There are so many poorly maintained houses for a number of reasons. One is
that home owners will not think twice about spending £500 - £1000 on a car
service but will not dream of paying someone the same amount to maintain
their home.

Another is the inability to realise the maintenance requirements of their
property, or just general apathy. Reluctance to find a reliable trades
person or lack of trust due to media reporting is another.

dg


"Andrew" wrote in message
om...
"dg" wrote in message
...

Any older house will generally have more maintenance costs. But over the
period you plan to keep it you have to decide whether the £20k new house
'premium' is more than the cost of maintaining your older house. You
could
buy an old house with all the maintenance done by the previous owner -
so
maintenance free for the next 15 years.


Where do you get the idea that any house, new or old, can be
maintenance free for 15 years? That's why there are so many crap,
poorly maintained, houses on the market.

derek wrote:

On Thu, 08 Jan 2004 13:12:05 +0000 (GMT), Dave Plowman
wrote:


In article ,
IMM wrote:

Newer house are more in demand in some areas, hence the higher price for
them.

It would depend on the older housing stock. If it's all back to back
terraces built next to th'pit,


Take a South Yorkshire pit village and demolish t' pit and pretty soon
it's just as chocolate -boxy as a village in the Cotswolds.


Well it would take a couple of hunderd years for the trees to grow back,
but, yes, I see your point.



Back to back houses are OK if well built specially of stone. But by
and large they are too small to bring a family up in. OK for people
who's kids have flown the nest.



When I were a lad...etc. etc.

They are fine up to toddle stage, as are flats with communal play areas.

I agree that after that its nice to have more space.




I can understand the preference for a new house.



My house was built in 1972. It's been well maintained but what worries
me is that the "London Brick Co" "Heather" bricks seem to be
deteriorating, surfaces spalling off in patches. Corners and edges
rounding off. WTH do you do about that?



Render it and paint it?


DG

In article , IMM
writes

"dg" wrote in message
...

Any older house will generally have more maintenance costs. But over the
period you plan to keep it you have to decide whether the £20k new house
'premium' is more than the cost of maintaining your older house. You
could
buy an old house with all the maintenance done by the previous owner -
so
maintenance free for the next 15 years.

Newer house are more in demand in some areas, hence the higher price for
them. Owners know they are relatively trouble free and cheap to keep warm.
They tend to come with utility rooms and proper plumbing and electrical
systems, not bodged up and added to over years stuff.

If there weren't any SWMBO's there wouldn't be a 'new house premium',
since we are far more sensible, aren't we :-)

---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.558 / Virus Database: 350 - Release Date: 02/01/2004



--
Andrew

In article ,
Capitol wrote:
For once IMM is correct. In the Islington area of London, speculators
only erected the front walls of the terrace. When a buyer appeared, the
rest of the house was built. The building standards with locally made
soft ricks( City Road), lime mortar, casual labour and no inspection,
were very, very much worse than today. Frequently the house fell down
either during or shortly after construction. Failing to tie the dividing
walls into the front was a common failing ( and still creates havoc
today, a friend bought one for £1M and then found out that to stop it
falling down was going to cost him another £500K!) and adjacent houses
were commonly completed by different builders.

Of course there was a vast variation in building standards - but *in
general* the fact that they're still standing after 100 years means
something. As you say, the real jerry built ones didn't last that long.

Speculation building? How many people buy a new house these days before
the estate has started to be built? They look at the show house and then
perhaps decide to buy - and their house is already under some stage of at
least planning or construction - so the builder is speculating too.

Dunno Islington - sounds posh to me. Round this part of Sarf Lunnun they
use London Stocks which seem to last pretty well. I reckon there's at
least four different grades of them used in mine - the best ones naturally
at the front. Doesn't seem to make much difference to the strength,
though. And lime mortar allows things to move slightly without cracking.
If you can't beat them, join them.

--
*Pentium wise, pen and paper foolish *

Dave Plowman London SW 12
RIP Acorn

On 8 Jan 2004 16:20:54 GMT, "Bob Eager" wrote:

On Thu, 8 Jan 2004 13:56:45 UTC, Witchy
wrote:

We're currently in a house built in 1886, and the only thing I don't
like about it is the floors on the top floor all have a little too
much spring for my liking. Oh, and the whole building shakes when
trucks thunder past on the main road and hit the pothole convieniently
outside the front gate.

Sounds very similar to our 1903 house. Only ground and first floor, but
on a main road. Originally detached, but 'terraced' either side in the
1930s.

Bummer! Thinking about it we're not on a full-blown main road 'cos we
don't get the pantechnicons and big buses......gawds knows what the
house would do if we did!

And we still bought it, purely because it had massive amounts of
character and space, and none of the damage was irrepairable over
time.

Exactly.

I just wish I had the Missus' foresight - she can see the place
finished and I can't

Finish renovating the dining room when it's not full of old computers.

Living room in our case! Old computers too....

as bad as this? http://vorbis.demon.co.uk/kinnell/DSCF1972.jpg
http://vorbis.demon.co.uk/kinnell/DSCF1974.jpg
Note: it's currently MUCH worse than that now.....those were taken a
year ago.

Hope the ceiling doesn't come down!

Living room ceiling did that before Christmas.

Eep! Caused by what?

--
cheers,

witchy/binarydinosaurs

On Fri, 9 Jan 2004 00:59:25 UTC, Witchy
wrote:

Living room in our case! Old computers too....

as bad as this? http://vorbis.demon.co.uk/kinnell/DSCF1972.jpg
http://vorbis.demon.co.uk/kinnell/DSCF1974.jpg
Note: it's currently MUCH worse than that now.....those were taken a
year ago.

Well, at its peak it had 43 machines in it. About 20 server towers, the
rest desktops. 17 monitors, 47 spare hard drives, 15 plastic boxes of
spare cards and other bits, 4 token ring MAUs, three 24 port hubs, 28
keyboards, 50 or so mice, about 60 diskette drives, and I forget the
rest (but much more).....!

I sold/chucked/gave away some of it and the rest is in a new shed. Apart
from the 12 or so machines in temporary or permanent use.

Living room ceiling did that before Christmas.

Eep! Caused by what?

It's a large room and this is the only section that hadn't been boarded
(original L&P). Right underneath where the kids constantly jump, also
there was a loose end of an old iron gas pipe lying on the top of the
laths...other end in a T joint I couldn't undo. Lifted some more boards
and sawed it off, and ceiling fell three days later, so who knows?
--
Bob Eager
rde at tavi.co.uk
PC Server 325*4; PS/2s 9585, 8595, 9595*2, 8580*3,
P70...

On 9 Jan 2004 01:21:35 GMT, "Bob Eager" wrote:

Living room ceiling did that before Christmas.

Eep! Caused by what?

It's a large room and this is the only section that hadn't been boarded
(original L&P). Right underneath where the kids constantly jump, also
there was a loose end of an old iron gas pipe lying on the top of the
laths...other end in a T joint I couldn't undo. Lifted some more boards
and sawed it off, and ceiling fell three days later, so who knows?

I've got a similar problem in the storage/dining room. It used to be
divided in 2 by a brick wall that wasn't really tied into either side
wall, and when the builders got to the ceiling they just stopped and
used cornicing to hide the fact.....grr....when I took the wall down
during renovation (this was the weevil/damp room) I could see how bad
the ceiling now was so it's temporarily supported by battens screwed
to the joists.
It's right below our little one's bedroom......much jumping occurs as
you can expect! Fortunately in the not too distant future I'll be
under the boards in that room so hopefully I'll be able to repair from
the back using wet plaster......
--
cheers,

witchy/binarydinosaurs

Dave Plowman wrote in message ...
Dunno Islington - sounds posh to me.
A bit like thouse roads off Bedford Hill. Very choice buildings, but all
converted to flats. This is why Hackney and Stoke Newington became trendy,
even without decent transport. Brixton didn't quite make it though, despite
the Victoria Line and the lovely housing stock.
Couldn't help noticing on a trip to Balham the other night a) how full the
pubs were and b) ladies of the night parading on Bedford Hill. They used to
be shoulder to shoulder up there by the common when I was a lad.
Round this part of Sarf Lunnun they
use London Stocks which seem to last pretty well. I reckon there's at
least four different grades of them used in mine - the best ones naturally
at the front. Doesn't seem to make much difference to the strength,
though. And lime mortar allows things to move slightly without cracking.
If you can't beat them, join them.
I would guess your London stocks are pretty much the same as mine, that is
stacked one on top of the other with a crumbly powder between them. I think
the merits or otherwise of lime mortar are academic when this stuff has long
ceased to be mortar in any meaningful sense of the word.

Andy Hall wrote in message . ..

That's no real issue and can easily be removed. I quite like to see
a certain amount of lichens on roof tiles. It makes them look more
interesting.....


Apparently lichens only grow in places of low atmospheric pollution,
so it's a good indicator of air quality, as well as any aesthetic
benefit.

"Neil Jones" wrote in message
m...
Andy Hall wrote in message
. ..

That's no real issue and can easily be removed. I quite like to see
a certain amount of lichens on roof tiles. It makes them look more
interesting.....


Apparently lichens only grow in places of low atmospheric pollution,
so it's a good indicator of air quality, as well as any aesthetic
benefit.

but is the same true about moss? In fact, are moss and lichen synonymous?
I know that lichens are rarer than they once were.

I'm sitting working looking at the roof of the house opposite, and this is
liberally covered in mosses. This is sunny Twickenham, not that far out of
London and close to the Heathrow flightpaths and one of London's arterial
road, so whereas this might not be an area particularly high in atmospheric
pollution it certainly isn't the cleanest environment.

I've taken the liberty of crossposting this to uk.rec.gardning, in the hope
that one of their knowledgeable netizens may be able to throw some light on
the question.



--
Richard Sampson

email me at
richard at olifant d-ot co do-t uk

On Fri, 9 Jan 2004 12:56:15 -0000, "RichardS" noaccess@invalid
wrote:

"Neil Jones" wrote in message
om...
Andy Hall wrote in message
...

That's no real issue and can easily be removed. I quite like to see
a certain amount of lichens on roof tiles. It makes them look more
interesting.....


Apparently lichens only grow in places of low atmospheric pollution,
so it's a good indicator of air quality, as well as any aesthetic
benefit.

but is the same true about moss? In fact, are moss and lichen synonymous?
I know that lichens are rarer than they once were.

I'm sitting working looking at the roof of the house opposite, and this is
liberally covered in mosses. This is sunny Twickenham, not that far out of
London and close to the Heathrow flightpaths and one of London's arterial
road, so whereas this might not be an area particularly high in atmospheric
pollution it certainly isn't the cleanest environment.

I've taken the liberty of crossposting this to uk.rec.gardning, in the hope
that one of their knowledgeable netizens may be able to throw some light on
the question.

I just discussed with SWMBO, who is a zoology graduate, but has also
studied plant life extensively.

There are a whole spectrum of lichens and some will grow in moderately
polluted conditions. Others are more sensitive to conditions, so for
example you will see a richer set of lichens in a forest in Wales than
you will in town.

They are a composite organism from a fungus and algae, bacteria or
both.

http://www.lichen.com/biology.html

Mosses are rather different, in that theyare plants and produce
chlorophyll themselves and are generally attracted to places where
there is moisture - hence finding them in gutters...

Clearly it makes sense to remove moss from gutters to avoid them
cloggin and water running down the walls, but there is no reason to
remove them or lichens from roofs. Arguably there is more risk of
damage from blasting with a pressure washer or from use of chemicals.




..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

Andy Hall wrote:
There are a whole spectrum of lichens and some will grow in moderately
polluted conditions. Others are more sensitive to conditions, so for
example you will see a richer set of lichens in a forest in Wales than
you will in town.

I heard recently on some environmental thing on R4 about the
effects of pollution on buildings. All this is subject to
the vagiaries of my memory, but I think I've remembered the
gist of it right: In Victorian times, they
burnt loads of sulphorous coal, and got gypsum (or something)
deposits on buildings. Now, with all the petroleum fuel
being used, there's hardly any sulphur, but loads of
nitrogen-containing stuff -- which means that these days it's
easier for plants/algae/etc to grow on buildings.

--
#Paul

The Natural Philosopher wrote in message ...
Andrew Gabriel wrote:

In article ,
"IMM" writes:

Victorian house were speculative and only had a design life of about 50
years too. Every torn away some of the facade of Victorian houses? Bodgers
were there then too.


******** is the term which springs to mind.


A agrre. They had no design life at all. The term wasn';t invented till
much later :-)

Victorian houses were anythung from rapidly erected shelters against the
weather for the mine workers, to huge grandiose works of architecture.

Soem were just thrown togher, others were built with care. Rubble
building was, and sill is a perfectly valid way to make a house if
bricks are very expensive and labor is cheap...

So what we're saying is that both in Victorian times and present
times, there were variations in quality of build.
However, anyone living in a victorian house is in a house that has
proved beyond reasonable doubt that it's stood the test of time...100
Years and still going. You can't say that about any house built this
year...it's a gamble unless you have years of experience to know what
to look for, and a good solicitor.

With the current property bubble, developers are falling over
themselves to build and build quickly to secure the funding for
further builds before the bubble bursts. One could assume that a
quicker build is more likely to lead to lower quality (let's not go
into weathering during long constructions) as projects are pushed
harder and corners cut. Add to that the obvious resourcing issue in
the country and it's only natural to assume the less talented
labourers are now getting work they couldn't in the past leading again
to lower quality construction. Yes there are good developers and bad,
but I think the current period is one full of minefields for the first
time buyer.

Ant.

In article ,
stuart noble wrote:
Dave Plowman wrote in message ...

Dunno Islington - sounds posh to me.

A bit like thouse roads off Bedford Hill. Very choice buildings, but all
converted to flats.

Certainly a lot are - they're simply too big for many. Or were a few years
ago.

This is why Hackney and Stoke Newington became
trendy, even without decent transport. Brixton didn't quite make it
though, despite the Victoria Line and the lovely housing stock.

I'd hardly call it cheap now. You've really got to go out as far as
Mitcham to get cheaper places, and of course, most of that is much newer.

Couldn't help noticing on a trip to Balham the other night a) how full
the pubs were and b) ladies of the night parading on Bedford Hill. They
used to be shoulder to shoulder up there by the common when I was a lad.

Did you visit the Bedford? It used to be the tarts pub - now it's all
luvvies. You still see a few tarts up by the common during the day - all
knock kneed in there mini skirts in this weather. Thought the police had
cleared them away at night.

Round this part of Sarf Lunnun they use London Stocks which seem to
last pretty well. I reckon there's at least four different grades of
them used in mine - the best ones naturally at the front. Doesn't seem
to make much difference to the strength, though. And lime mortar allows
things to move slightly without cracking. If you can't beat them, join
them.

I would guess your London stocks are pretty much the same as mine, that
is stacked one on top of the other with a crumbly powder between them. I
think the merits or otherwise of lime mortar are academic when this
stuff has long ceased to be mortar in any meaningful sense of the word.

My builder mate says it's just the pointing that holds them together. But
if you do any repairs, don't use a strong mix of mortar - the bricks will
simply crack with any movement.

--
*Puritanism: The haunting fear that someone, somewhere may be happy.

Dave Plowman London SW 12
RIP Acorn

"ANt" wrote in message
om...
The Natural Philosopher wrote in message
...
Andrew Gabriel wrote:

In article ,
"IMM" writes:

Victorian house were speculative and only had a design life of about
50
years too. Every torn away some of the facade of Victorian houses?
Bodgers
were there then too.


******** is the term which springs to mind.


A agrre. They had no design life at all. The term wasn';t invented till
much later :-)

Victorian houses were anythung from rapidly erected shelters against the
weather for the mine workers, to huge grandiose works of architecture.

Soem were just thrown togher, others were built with care. Rubble
building was, and sill is a perfectly valid way to make a house if
bricks are very expensive and labor is cheap...

So what we're saying is that both in Victorian times and present
times, there were variations in quality of build.

Morso in Victoriana, as there were no BCOs.

However, anyone living in a victorian house is in a house that has
proved beyond reasonable doubt that it's stood the test of time...100
Years and still going. You can't say that about any house built this
year...

Nonsense. Modern house are built to far higher standards and regulations.

it's a gamble unless you have years of experience to know what
to look for, and a good solicitor.

Victorian houses are a big gamble.

With the current property bubble, developers are falling over
themselves to build and build quickly to secure the funding for
further builds before the bubble bursts. One could assume that a
quicker build is more likely to lead to lower quality (let's not go
into weathering during long constructions) as projects are pushed
harder and corners cut. Add to that the obvious resourcing issue in
the country and it's only natural to assume the less talented
labourers are now getting work they couldn't in the past leading again
to lower quality construction. Yes there are good developers and bad,
but I think the current period is one full of minefields for the first
time buyer.

True.


---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.558 / Virus Database: 350 - Release Date: 02/01/2004

In article , Imm wrote:
Morso in Victoriana, as there were no BCOs.

The change was in 1875 when the Public Health Act brought in
building byelaws, though enforcement of same was very variable for
many years (and some would say still is g). My limited
geographical experience as a BCO in SW London suggested that the
later Victorian buildings were, in general, significantly better
built that the earlier ones.

--
Tony Bryer SDA UK 'Software to build on' http://www.sda.co.uk
Free SEDBUK boiler database browser
http://www.sda.co.uk/qsedbuk.htm

"Tony Bryer" wrote in message
...
In article , Imm wrote:
Morso in Victoriana, as there were no BCOs.

The change was in 1875 when the Public Health Act brought in
building byelaws, though enforcement of same was very variable for
many years (and some would say still is g). My limited
geographical experience as a BCO in SW London suggested that the
later Victorian buildings were, in general, significantly better
built that the earlier ones.

Well regulation and standards did come in during the 1800s, so the later
houses would be better. The Victorians invented "standards", so everyone is
nearly working the same. Some Victorian houses had different width
floorboards across the same room, as each supplier had different sizes.




---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.558 / Virus Database: 350 - Release Date: 02/01/2004

"Andy wrote in message

That's no real issue and can easily be removed. I quite like to see
a certain amount of lichens on roof tiles. It makes them look more
interesting.....


Apparently lichens only grow in places of low atmospheric pollution,
so it's a good indicator of air quality, as well as any aesthetic
benefit.

but is the same true about moss? In fact, are moss and lichen
synonymous?
I know that lichens are rarer than they once were.

Actually, since the Clean Air Act came into force (yes I remember that!) the
pollution has reduced drastically. Most came from coal fires and those of us
of a certain age will remember those horrid yellow filthy smogs every winter
in the good old days. Whilst most pollution still comes from the home,
central heating etc, vehicle pollution has made drastic reductions too in
recent years, in fact the pollution from cars is a reversing trend despite
more and more on the roads. Because of this Litchens can now be seen on many
rooftops, walls and trees, even in towns, which is something one never saw
when I was a kid. Take a look as you drive along, you will spot some roofs
covered with grey litchens.

I seem to remember Kew saying recently that they were on the acendancy in
their garden and you aren't too far from there.


There are a whole spectrum of lichens and some will grow in moderately
polluted conditions. Others are more sensitive to conditions, so for
example you will see a richer set of lichens in a forest in Wales than
you will in town.

Mosses are rather different, in that theyare plants and produce
chlorophyll themselves and are generally attracted to places where
there is moisture - hence finding them in gutters...

Clearly it makes sense to remove moss from gutters to avoid them
cloggin and water running down the walls, but there is no reason to
remove them or lichens from roofs. Arguably there is more risk of
damage from blasting with a pressure washer or from use of chemicals.

True, it's a bit like Ivy, you do the damage getting it off.

Whilst there are some "green" roofs in the UK (Notcutts GC in Staines for
one) it is a strongly growing trend on the continent the idea being that
building a house and then having a green roof does not reduce the green
habitat for parts of the animal kingdom one bit. It's a bit like building
underground especially for the flying insects/birds.
So whilst moss in your gutters is not good, on the roof it isn't a problem.

Incidentally in certain parts of the country people used to plant Houseleeks
( Semperivivum tectorum ?) on their roofs to ward against Witches and
lightening. Plant them on the sunny side of the house. :-)

--
Regards
Bob

Use a useful Screen Saver...
http://setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/
and find intelligent life amongst the stars
359 data units completed.

ANt wrote:

The Natural Philosopher wrote in message ...

Andrew Gabriel wrote:


In article ,
"IMM" writes:


Victorian house were speculative and only had a design life of about 50
years too. Every torn away some of the facade of Victorian houses? Bodgers
were there then too.


******** is the term which springs to mind.


A agrre. They had no design life at all. The term wasn';t invented till
much later :-)

Victorian houses were anythung from rapidly erected shelters against the
weather for the mine workers, to huge grandiose works of architecture.

Soem were just thrown togher, others were built with care. Rubble
building was, and sill is a perfectly valid way to make a house if
bricks are very expensive and labor is cheap...


So what we're saying is that both in Victorian times and present
times, there were variations in quality of build.
However, anyone living in a victorian house is in a house that has
proved beyond reasonable doubt that it's stood the test of time...100
Years and still going. You can't say that about any house built this
year...it's a gamble unless you have years of experience to know what
to look for, and a good solicitor.



ah, but who is to say that your hundred year old house will not fall
down tomorrow.

At least with a brand new one you can sure smomeone when it does...


With the current property bubble, developers are falling over
themselves to build and build quickly to secure the funding for
further builds before the bubble bursts. One could assume that a
quicker build is more likely to lead to lower quality (let's not go
into weathering during long constructions) as projects are pushed
harder and corners cut. Add to that the obvious resourcing issue in
the country and it's only natural to assume the less talented
labourers are now getting work they couldn't in the past leading again
to lower quality construction. Yes there are good developers and bad,
but I think the current period is one full of minefields for the first
time buyer.



Not if they sell it in 5 years. They may NOT get a 100% mortgage on an
old property eiher.


Ant.

On Fri, 09 Jan 2004 00:17:04 +0000 (GMT), Dave Plowman
wrote:

In article ,
Capitol wrote:
For once IMM is correct. In the Islington area of London, speculators
only erected the front walls of the terrace. When a buyer appeared, the
rest of the house was built. The building standards with locally made
soft ricks( City Road), lime mortar, casual labour and no inspection,
were very, very much worse than today. Frequently the house fell down
either during or shortly after construction. Failing to tie the dividing
walls into the front was a common failing ( and still creates havoc
today, a friend bought one for £1M and then found out that to stop it
falling down was going to cost him another £500K!) and adjacent houses
were commonly completed by different builders.

Of course there was a vast variation in building standards - but *in
general* the fact that they're still standing after 100 years means
something. As you say, the real jerry built ones didn't last that long.

snip

The road I live in is mostly composed of victorian semis, it should
be renamed skip road for all the skips which appear outside these
houses. I have seen entire front walls/roofs being replaced, perhaps
that is why they are still standing after 100 years.


Paul

IMM wrote:

"ANt" wrote in message
om...

The Natural Philosopher wrote in message

...

Andrew Gabriel wrote:


In article ,
"IMM" writes:


Victorian house were speculative and only had a design life of about

50

years too. Every torn away some of the facade of Victorian houses?

Bodgers

were there then too.


******** is the term which springs to mind.


A agrre. They had no design life at all. The term wasn';t invented till
much later :-)

Victorian houses were anythung from rapidly erected shelters against the
weather for the mine workers, to huge grandiose works of architecture.

Soem were just thrown togher, others were built with care. Rubble
building was, and sill is a perfectly valid way to make a house if
bricks are very expensive and labor is cheap...

So what we're saying is that both in Victorian times and present
times, there were variations in quality of build.


Morso in Victoriana, as there were no BCOs.


However, anyone living in a victorian house is in a house that has
proved beyond reasonable doubt that it's stood the test of time...100
Years and still going. You can't say that about any house built this
year...


Nonsense. Modern house are built to far higher standards and regulations.


Yes, and no.
An internal plasterboard wall may be to regulations, but you can put
your foot through it eaiser than a rubble-and-lime-mortar one from 100
years ago.

Modern multi-braced roof trusses are cheap, and adequate, but won't
allow you to add a room in the attic like substantial victorian ones might.

Do machine tiles really outlast welsh slate?

The building regs do no more than ensure the house will probably say up
more than 5 years, and is reasonably warm when its put together. There
are plenty of ways to cut corners within the regs and produce shoddy tat.







it's a gamble unless you have years of experience to know what
to look for, and a good solicitor.


Victorian houses are a big gamble.



Not really. If yu have any sense of knowing what you are doing.

Agreed, in your case, you don't.

"Bob Hobden" wrote in message
...

"Andy wrote in message

That's no real issue and can easily be removed. I quite like to
see
a certain amount of lichens on roof tiles. It makes them look more
interesting.....


Apparently lichens only grow in places of low atmospheric pollution,
so it's a good indicator of air quality, as well as any aesthetic
benefit.

but is the same true about moss? In fact, are moss and lichen
synonymous?
I know that lichens are rarer than they once were.

Actually, since the Clean Air Act came into
force (yes I remember that!) the
pollution has reduced drastically. Most came
from coal fires and those of us
of a certain age will remember those horrid
yellow filthy smogs every winter
in the good old days. Whilst most pollution
still comes from the home, central heating etc,
vehicle pollution has made drastic reductions too in
recent years, in fact the pollution from cars is a
reversing trend despite
more and more on the roads.

Pollution from homes: oil, gas and electricity generation, is approx 42%, so
clamping down on this is very productive. The MicroGen Stirling elec/gas
boiler will make a big impact here. The coming minimum 86% boiler
efficiency is welcome too and will make an impact. EU regulation on gas
burners, which are very clean anyhow, are tightening too.

Vehicles "are" a very large polluters, especially when they are concentrated
in cities, where masses of people live. Great progress is being made on
pollution from homes, in insulation standards, boiler efficiency , etc, yet
there appears no immediate solution to the filthy car. Technology is there
to make boilers very efficient and very clean burning, at no great cost,
also by increasing insulation standards, a homes emissions can be
drastically reduced. This can be done right now and people wonder why it is
not being implemented. The car? Well apart from taxing larger engines, not
much at all can be done. There are some advanced concept engines around,
but the big corps have not yet taken up these ideas, tending not wanting any
change at all.

Cars are even dirtier until the engine and exhaust is hot. So, in many
cases, when the car is used to go to Safeway or the school run, the thing is
hardly up to temperature before being switched off. In this period they
pollute heavily. The current piston internal combustion engine needs
totally replacing.



---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.558 / Virus Database: 350 - Release Date: 02/01/2004

"Curiosity" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 09 Jan 2004 00:17:04 +0000 (GMT), Dave Plowman
wrote:

In article ,
Capitol wrote:
For once IMM is correct. In the Islington area of London, speculators
only erected the front walls of the terrace. When a buyer appeared, the
rest of the house was built. The building standards with locally made
soft ricks( City Road), lime mortar, casual labour and no inspection,
were very, very much worse than today. Frequently the house fell down
either during or shortly after construction. Failing to tie the
dividing
walls into the front was a common failing ( and still creates havoc
today, a friend bought one for £1M and then found out that to stop it
falling down was going to cost him another £500K!) and adjacent houses
were commonly completed by different builders.

Of course there was a vast variation in building standards - but *in
general* the fact that they're still standing after 100 years means
something. As you say, the real jerry built ones didn't last that long.

snip

The road I live in is mostly composed of victorian semis, it should
be renamed skip road for all the skips which appear outside these
houses. I have seen entire front walls/roofs being replaced, perhaps
that is why they are still standing after 100 years.

True. Very little is left of some of them. Look at that Property Ladder
prog. All was replaced: walls, floors and roof and intermediate floors. It
was a new house.




---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.558 / Virus Database: 350 - Release Date: 02/01/2004

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
IMM wrote:

"ANt" wrote in message
om...

The Natural Philosopher wrote in message

...

Andrew Gabriel wrote:


In article ,
"IMM" writes:


Victorian house were speculative and only had a design life of about

50

years too. Every torn away some of the facade of Victorian houses?

Bodgers

were there then too.


******** is the term which springs to mind.


A agrre. They had no design life at all. The term wasn';t invented till
much later :-)

Victorian houses were anythung from rapidly erected shelters against
the
weather for the mine workers, to huge grandiose works of architecture.

Soem were just thrown togher, others were built with care. Rubble
building was, and sill is a perfectly valid way to make a house if
bricks are very expensive and labor is cheap...

So what we're saying is that both in Victorian times and present
times, there were variations in quality of build.


Morso in Victoriana, as there were no BCOs.


However, anyone living in a victorian house is in a house that has
proved beyond reasonable doubt that it's stood the test of time...100
Years and still going. You can't say that about any house built this
year...


Nonsense. Modern house are built to far higher standards and
regulations.


Yes, and no.
An internal plasterboard wall may be to regulations, but you can put
your foot through it eaiser than a rubble-and-lime-mortar one from 100
years ago.

How many of those are around? Most was lathe & plaster.

Modern multi-braced roof trusses are cheap, and adequate, but won't
allow you to add a room in the attic like substantial victorian ones
might.

So? Modern timbers are far superior to Victorian houses.

Do machine tiles really outlast welsh slate?

Some modern houses still have slate on them. Spanish.

The building regs do no more than ensure the house will probably say up
more than 5 years, and is reasonably warm when its put together. There
are plenty of ways to cut corners within the regs and produce shoddy tat.

The regs are concerned with the structure, not aesthetics, which I think
they should

it's a gamble unless you have years of experience to know what
to look for, and a good solicitor.

Victorian houses are a big gamble.

Not really. If yu have any sense of knowing what you are doing.

Agreed, in your case, you don't.

You built a house, which was, well, erm, well, erm.....


---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.558 / Virus Database: 350 - Release Date: 02/01/2004

Dave Plowman wrote in message ...
Did you visit the Bedford? It used to be the tarts pub - now it's all
luvvies.
No, drove past it though, and it was packed to the rafters. At £500+ quid a
month rent, I'm surprised these youngsters can afford it. I think they
should all stay in every night and build up their pensions. Huh! Fat chance
in my offspring's case.
My builder mate says it's just the pointing that holds them together. But
if you do any repairs, don't use a strong mix of mortar - the bricks will
simply crack with any movement.
I think it's only being on top of one another that holds them together. I
raked out and re-pointed the whole front of our house at 4:1 with lashings
of pva. Nothing's cracked in 12 years, and the dampness hasn't returned.
Looks a bit tasty too. Pity it's not in SW12 :-)

The message
from "RichardS" noaccess@invalid contains these words:

Apparently lichens only grow in places of low atmospheric pollution,
so it's a good indicator of air quality, as well as any aesthetic
benefit.

but is the same true about moss? In fact, are moss and lichen synonymous?
I know that lichens are rarer than they once were.

No. Moss is a bryophyte, a true plant. Lichen is a symbiotic union of an
alga and a fungus - an unlikely combination as algae are plants and
fungi are in a completely separate order.

I must say that I haven't noticed any evidence of lichens being any less
common than they were, and I've been interested in them since the early
'fifties.

I'm sitting working looking at the roof of the house opposite, and this is
liberally covered in mosses. This is sunny Twickenham, not that far out of
London and close to the Heathrow flightpaths and one of London's arterial
road, so whereas this might not be an area particularly high in atmospheric
pollution it certainly isn't the cleanest environment.

Mosses require some sort of soil to start with, and moisture with it.
Some mosses can dry out for long periods and be revitalised by a shower
of rain, and it is these which you'll find on roofs.

very often their shrinking in dry periods dislodges them, and they can
then colonise damper areas, either in the gutter or on the ground.

--
Rusty
Open the creaking gate to make a horrid.squeak, then lower the foobar.
http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/hi-fi/

IMM wrote:
The Neutered Pillockofer wrote:
[snip stuff to do with pros. and cons. of modern/old hosuses]
[ ribble and loam morgage]
How many of those are around? Most was lathe & plaster.

Lots of P&L is still about today & is OK. Lots of plasterboard, an
old invention, is too. Lots of plasterboard collapses in only 30-40
years. What's your point?


Modern multi-braced roof trusses are cheap, and adequate, but won't
allow you to add a room in the attic like substantial victorian ones
might.

So? Modern timbers are far superior to Victorian houses.

What? In what way?


Do machine tiles really outlast welsh slate?

Some modern houses still have slate on them. Spanish.

How is modern Spanish slate superior, or even equal, to the Welsh
slate used in the past for roofing?


If you can sensibly answer the above, I will be very surprised.

J.B.

IMM wrote:

"Tony Bryer" wrote in message
...

In article , Imm wrote:

Morso in Victoriana, as there were no BCOs.

The change was in 1875 when the Public Health Act brought in
building byelaws, though enforcement of same was very variable for
many years (and some would say still is g). My limited
geographical experience as a BCO in SW London suggested that the
later Victorian buildings were, in general, significantly better
built that the earlier ones.


Well regulation and standards did come in during the 1800s, so the later
houses would be better. The Victorians invented "standards", so everyone is
nearly working the same. Some Victorian houses had different width
floorboards across the same room, as each supplier had different sizes.



Sctually its more about taking the most out of whatever tree you had,
and it still happends today.

I have doors made of randomn oakl boarding. Less waste of timber - no
need to cut a 4.5" board down to 4" just to satisfy brussles etc.

Anoher example of stupid legislation wasting resources.





---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.558 / Virus Database: 350 - Release Date: 02/01/2004

Curiosity wrote:

On Fri, 09 Jan 2004 00:17:04 +0000 (GMT), Dave Plowman
wrote:


In article ,
Capitol wrote:

For once IMM is correct. In the Islington area of London, speculators
only erected the front walls of the terrace. When a buyer appeared, the
rest of the house was built. The building standards with locally made
soft ricks( City Road), lime mortar, casual labour and no inspection,
were very, very much worse than today. Frequently the house fell down
either during or shortly after construction. Failing to tie the dividing
walls into the front was a common failing ( and still creates havoc
today, a friend bought one for £1M and then found out that to stop it
falling down was going to cost him another £500K!) and adjacent houses
were commonly completed by different builders.

Of course there was a vast variation in building standards - but *in
general* the fact that they're still standing after 100 years means
something. As you say, the real jerry built ones didn't last that long.


snip

The road I live in is mostly composed of victorian semis, it should
be renamed skip road for all the skips which appear outside these
houses. I have seen entire front walls/roofs being replaced, perhaps
that is why they are still standing after 100 years.


Of course it is.

Underpin, prop, RSJ, dig, extend, blend in new..replaster, rewire, replumb, and hey.

You have a modern house in a victoirian shell.


Local conservationists are happy, BCO is happy, and with luck its still worth living in.


Frankly I hate victorian houses - most of the small ones anyway.




Paul

IMM wrote:

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

IMM wrote:


"ANt" wrote in message
e.com...


The Natural Philosopher wrote in message


...


Andrew Gabriel wrote:



In article ,
"IMM" writes:



Victorian house were speculative and only had a design life of about


50


years too. Every torn away some of the facade of Victorian houses?


Bodgers


were there then too.



******** is the term which springs to mind.



A agrre. They had no design life at all. The term wasn';t invented till
much later :-)

Victorian houses were anythung from rapidly erected shelters against

the

weather for the mine workers, to huge grandiose works of architecture.

Soem were just thrown togher, others were built with care. Rubble
building was, and sill is a perfectly valid way to make a house if
bricks are very expensive and labor is cheap...


So what we're saying is that both in Victorian times and present
times, there were variations in quality of build.


Morso in Victoriana, as there were no BCOs.



However, anyone living in a victorian house is in a house that has
proved beyond reasonable doubt that it's stood the test of time...100
Years and still going. You can't say that about any house built this
year...


Nonsense. Modern house are built to far higher standards and

regulations.


Yes, and no.
An internal plasterboard wall may be to regulations, but you can put
your foot through it eaiser than a rubble-and-lime-mortar one from 100
years ago.


How many of those are around? Most was lathe & plaster.


Modern multi-braced roof trusses are cheap, and adequate, but won't
allow you to add a room in the attic like substantial victorian ones

might.

So? Modern timbers are far superior to Victorian houses.


Do machine tiles really outlast welsh slate?


Some modern houses still have slate on them. Spanish.


The building regs do no more than ensure the house will probably say up
more than 5 years, and is reasonably warm when its put together. There
are plenty of ways to cut corners within the regs and produce shoddy tat.


The regs are concerned with the structure, not aesthetics, which I think
they should


it's a gamble unless you have years of experience to know what
to look for, and a good solicitor.

Victorian houses are a big gamble.

Not really. If yu have any sense of knowing what you are doing.

Agreed, in your case, you don't.


You built a house, which was, well, erm, well, erm.....




Very well thought of, cosy and warm and efficient.


---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.558 / Virus Database: 350 - Release Date: 02/01/2004

Jerry Built wrote:

IMM wrote:

The Neutered Pillockofer wrote:
[snip stuff to do with pros. and cons. of modern/old hosuses]
[ ribble and loam morgage]
How many of those are around? Most was lathe & plaster.


Lots of P&L is still about today & is OK. Lots of plasterboard, an
old invention, is too. Lots of plasterboard collapses in only 30-40
years. What's your point?

Modern multi-braced roof trusses are cheap, and adequate, but won't
allow you to add a room in the attic like substantial victorian ones
might.
So? Modern timbers are far superior to Victorian houses.


What? In what way?

Do machine tiles really outlast welsh slate?
Some modern houses still have slate on them. Spanish.


How is modern Spanish slate superior, or even equal, to the Welsh
slate used in the past for roofing?

If you can sensibly answer the above, I will be very surprised.


Oh he can answer all right, it may not be true, it may not be
grammatical, it may not even be comprehensible, but answer he will :-)


J.B.

In article , The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Do machine tiles really outlast welsh slate?

They certainly outlast a lot of clay tiles: most of 1930's New
Malden was built by Wates who used these new-fangled Marley
concrete tiles. 65 years on they may have lost some of their
colour but they are still sound. Down the road in Berrylands most
houses have had to be reroofed because the tiles have delaminated.

--
Tony Bryer SDA UK 'Software to build on' http://www.sda.co.uk
Free SEDBUK boiler database browser
http://www.sda.co.uk/qsedbuk.htm

In article ,
IMM wrote:
Some Victorian houses had different width
floorboards across the same room, as each supplier had different sizes.

But of course you'd prefer nice tidy sheets of chipboard.

Every time you put 'pen to paper' you prove you have zero practical
knowledge of anything.

--
*We have enough youth, how about a fountain of Smart?

Dave Plowman London SW 12
RIP Acorn

In article ,
IMM wrote:
I have seen entire front walls/roofs being replaced, perhaps
that is why they are still standing after 100 years.

True. Very little is left of some of them. Look at that Property
Ladder prog. All was replaced: walls, floors and roof and intermediate
floors. It was a new house.

So now we know where your 'experience' comes from.

--
*Why is it that most nudists are people you don't want to see naked?*

Dave Plowman London SW 12
RIP Acorn

In article ,
IMM wrote:
Modern multi-braced roof trusses are cheap, and adequate, but won't
allow you to add a room in the attic like substantial victorian ones
might.

So? Modern timbers are far superior to Victorian houses.

It gets better and better....

--
*If at first you don't succeed, try management *

Dave Plowman London SW 12
RIP Acorn